Okay this topic is far too large to write in any real structure that I'm capable of so hang on to your hats and try to follow.
Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Ghosties, Limies, Spics whatever, why are these labels kept past their usage?
I have a friend who's Asian. His name is Joe. That's not his real name but just the one he adopted when he came to England. I call him Joe and treat him as Joe. Why do so many treat him as Asian? Okay as a first contact it possibly should bear in people's minds but after that surely he's just Joe?
Why do people look for control and look to segment people into pigeon holes so they can be categorised and organised with labels instead of responding to instances? Labels are a tool used in communication and are often irrelevant to the reality which presents itself. So why keep labels once the reality is apparent?
Cats versus Dogs.
Dogs do not hate cats and cats do not hate dogs. Hell I'd wager that they don't even recognise that the other is of different species, so why do we segment people and try to label them with predefined attributes which determine our love or hatred of them?
Basically what's the psychological reasoning behind our segmentation? Is it to control, to cope or merely a left over of our communication style?
Why do we compartmentalise people when it is so obvious that such efforts are futile and inaccurate?
If our system of labels worked in terms of reality then every person of a given "minority" would have certain similar responses to given stimuli but they don't. Sure you get tendencies and probabilities but at what point do people decide it is logical or reasonable to "convert" such things to definites?
Are we so fragile of mind that we require such crutches or is it simply laziness which promotes such unreasoned behaviour?
Oh and just cause I mentioned minorities, this is a side effect or perhaps a reverse assembly of compartmentalisation where people decide that they are "the people of X" and should be treated differently and yet demand equality. If equality is inclusion then is it right to say that 'wants' are more important and trump 'do not wants'?
If all are to live as one then all must be treated equally and have the same claims to things else the system does not work (well not to my degree of critique that is). However this means that arbitrary lines such as what you believe in or what church you go to or where you/ your parents/ your ancestors were born must become as important to what you require as your hobbies and interests.
I do not demand any extra facilitation for my hobbies so why should someone else's choice of what they do as an individual be treated as more deserving of special treatment than my own?
[Hmm this is starting to taste of peace loving anarchy is it not?]